Leaderboard

I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam here, but I wanted to give my thoughts on the subject... For quite some time now I've been considering if I truly have a place here and whether I should end my participation on the BFF. My two main sticking points are the fanatical "Bigfoot exists", "No they don't", "Yuh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" echo chamber and the insistence by both sides that the issue must be proven one way or another. There has been much debate recently about the participation of the skeptic/scofftic/denialist (referred to hereafter as SSD's) on the forum. Often quoted is this paragraph from the intro to the forum's Rules & Guidelines: None of this is given as a binding rule, but the principle that if one comes here with "preconceived and immovable notions about bigfoot" then there can be no expectation of "thought-provoking debate" is quite clear. The two viewpoints are mutually exclusive. Without conceding the possibility, no matter how small, that bigfoot might, might exist, then any "discussion" will inevitability devolve into a grade school ***-for-tat that stifles discussion and frustrates a significant portion of the membership who simply want to talk about bigfoot.What is also vital to the debate is the idea that the above principle applies not only to the SSD, but to the True Believer (TB), those who are 100% certain of bigfoot's existence without a sighting of their own. If the TB's cannot bring themselves to admit that someone might have a legitimate reason for not believing that bigfoot exists, we are at loggerheads again. That leaves us with the Knowers, those who claim clear, unambiguous, unmistakable sightings of an unknown large hairy biped. There is no respectable way to deny these claims, and not being present at the time of their encounter, I am happy to accept their claim barring other facts which come to light to contradict it. For the sake of argument, the Knowers exist as an entity unto themselves, and have no real bearing on the endless SSD/TB vicious circle. It seems to me that the FMT, the other administrators, and the Steering Committee here need to decide if we can allow those on both sides of the debate (who staunchly refuse to give any quarter to the other side) to continue their blind-arguing-the-blind antics. The fact we must all face (Knowers excluded. They have their personal proof) is that there is no proof either way. I am a proponent who tries to remain skeptical in the truest sense, and respect those who have thoughtfully reached a different conclusion. What I can't abide is the disrespectful and dismissive dogmatism of both the SSD and the TB, as well as their ongoing feud which serves only to derail many otherwise reasonable discussions, and poison the well here on the BFF. I understand that more rules here would further burden the good folks who volunteer their time as moderators, but unfortunately see no other alternative. Please understand that I am not advocating a stifling of debate. The behavior I am describing, and arguing for the banning of such, is not debate or discussion in any reasonable sense, but is instead merely a peeing contest between two immovable and closed-minded factions who refuse to give one inch to the other side. I am interested in any respectful discussion or views on the subject.

I'm just glad someone here has finally spoken up and told us there is no evidence that bigfoot exists, that it is nothing more than fanciful imagination, that believing bigfoot exists is the same as thinking angels exist. No one has ever told us that before. It must have took a lot of courage for you to speak up like this. I guess we can close the forum now. Move along people, nothing to see here.

^that's possible. :-)

I agree, other than some members being offended and leaving on their own, the answer is no. Yet you are trying to weasel out of the real issue, which is that it has stopped members from participating in the BFF, thus injuring it. So is string "theory", the difference is that dorky fantasies are labeled scientific, when in fact they are not. Nobody has ever solved string theory equations either, much less even proposed a way to confirm the theory experimentally, so it's all just belief, just like BF. The question we are asking here is whether trollish behavior like the one you excibit here, should be tolerated. I think more aggressive moderation is in order.

<Seems he was just amusing himself, or maybe he can't bring himself to show one iota of fallibility to his pals over at the other place...> That's a big part of it Stan. There is no more of a closed minded group that that supposed skeptics forum. They are anything but skeptics for the most part. I believe there are some that have a genuine interest in BF and at least have an open enough mind to discuss the subject without ridicule, but to do so would subject them to ridicule at that forum. If they want to stay in good with the popular kids there, they must ridicule everything bigfoot. That's fine if they want to do it at that forum, but they bring it here and it ruins any chance at discussion.

Debate on issue is good as long as it is done respectfully

If a cryptid does exist, then there will be folklore, so the premise that something is just folklore, simply because it is considered folklore is false.

Homo Elusus - Elusive Man From Wiktionary: "ēlūsus m ‎(feminine ēlūsa, neuter ēlūsum); first/second declension deceived, tricked, fooled, having been deceived escaped, avoided, evaded, eluded, having been evaded mocked, jeered, ridiculed, having been ridiculed" Bigfoot, by definition, are hominids. Hominids are intelligent. Logically, an extant hominid coexisting with mankind must have coexisted with mankind throughout our mutual development. Logically, an extant hominid that has coexisted with mankind for millennia, must develop survival strategies that enable it to either compete with or avoid us. Lack of success in doing so = extinction. If one were to define what characteristics a surviving megafauna hominid (assume a descendant of Homo Erectus/Homo Heidelbergensis) would require in order to successfully coexist with mankind, one would come close to building a bigfoot from scratch. Elusiveness would be essential. Technology would be a liability; providing hard, lasting, indisputable forensic evidence/artifacts of their presence. Physical power and prowess would be required to offset a lack of technology. Intelligence, applied within these boundary conditions, would be a prerequisite. Sticking with documented characteristics that are exhibited by known creatures in nature, including ourselves (such as the skills possessed by the best special operations soldiers, but applied full time to the point that they are innate, reflexive, and define the creature), one could assemble a set of natural skills that, collectively, are not supernatural, but do add up to a sum that is effectively preternatural. By this logic, a creature such as bigfoot can exist, and is less improbable than one might want to believe. Still, such a creature would inevitably come into contact with mankind, resulting in both modern reports and a body of folklore extending back into antiquity. These exist. Yet, as a species, we must also somehow prevent our species from collectively pursuing evidence and reports of bigfoot in order for bigfoot to coexist with us without interference and genocidal conflict. Enter the Subjective Skeptic: An objective skeptic analyzes facts without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of existence - a subjective skeptic acts upon prejudice, insisting that something cannot be, devoting himself primarily to the refutation of evidence and fact. Subjective skeptics, confronted with a mounting body of evidence, default to a Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil strategy. This is the role that subjective skeptics within our species fulfill. They enable bigfoot to survive in a world otherwise dominated by mankind by forestalling our species. Oddly, subjective skepticism, considered today by subjective skeptics to be based in the (mis)application of the scientific method, has its origins in religion over the millennia covering the mutual existence of mankind and bigfoot (I'm going to try to stay within the forum rules here by staying as objective and general as possible). In the competition between ideologies, if a deity (considered to be good) were to create mankind (perhaps in its own image), then a competing extant hominid must have been created by something else, something competing with and different from the accepted deity. Something evil. Dogmatically, acceptance of the existence of a competing hominid inherently confers the power of creation on the competing entity (defined as evil), potentially placing it on a equal footing with the accepted deity. Therefore, the acceptance of the existence of the competing hominid, and the competing hominid itself would, by necessity, be considered evil. So Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil, becomes the doctrine of Hear no Bigfoot, See no Bigfoot, Speak no Bigfoot that we observe over the centuries, and today (cloaked by dogma misrepresented as science) in subjective skeptics. This also explains the motivation of some subjective skeptics. To preserve their own belief systems by striving against others.

Ah, nice strawman from hyperbole. Well done. Sounds like you don't have much outdoor experience. Some of the answers are obvious to me but I'll point them out for your benefit. 1) Running water generates a lot of white noise which masks the sounds made around it. FWIW, that's why I don't camp creek-side, I back away a few hundred yards. I like to be able to hear. Still, I have to go to the creek for water so there is a period of vulnerability. 2) There is generally a breeze up or down canyons. Depending on which way the wind was blowing, all scent from the guys, horses, and gear may have been moving away from Patty. It is hard to smell that which is downwind of you. This factors into a debate I had with Henner Fahrenbach. It also factors into a puzzle in my own research area where 'whatever it is' remains upwind even when the wind changes. 3) Horses have a quadrupedal gait, they don't sound like humans moving, so it is very possible Patty knew they were there but mistook them for deer or elk until they rode out of the brush. There are probably more but that gives you a general idea how naive your assumptions are. Y' know, I've seen two at different times and probably a third. Whether they exist or not is a moot question for me .. duh, of course they exist. Discussion of whether they exist is like sitting around Monday morning rehashing how the football games should have gone. Should, shouldn't ... absolutely irrelevant. Even if I agreed, the score from Sunday stands. What matters to me is HOW. I'm not entirely convinced they have any special abilities. It is at least equally possible we vastly overestimate our own abilities. If you insist on underestimating your ... foe, enemy, competition, or whatever you choose to call them ... the chances of us achieving our goals (official discovery) rather than them achieving theirs (non-discovery) drops to nil. We are doing that by insisting we can only be chasing a dumb ape. MIB

One can insist that a cryptid is just a wishful manifestation of myth or folklore, but consider this: If a cryptid exists and has been encountered by mankind, then it must also exist in folklore.

^^^^^^^^ And you dont think that we were all in the boat with you??? So now your cynical, and so now we all have to listen to your cynical posts day in and out. Why? I guess I' ll never understand your motivation. If I was in your boots where my mind had been made up for me that this subject is a bunch of horse manure? I would join a fly fishing forum or something......gee whiz.

I'd say anybody can take whatever position they believe in, as long as they can manage to do so with some amount of respect for the views of others. Labeling something as a 'crackpot theory' suggests that there is little respect for the person with the opposing view.

^^^^^ Thats not possible.

Well that describes you well doesn't it Crow? I'd bet the farm that if you had something tall and furry cross your path at 2 am? You'd be back to defending the PGF so quick it would make all our heads spin. Not all of us rely on some sort of public opinion to make up our minds for us.......the answer will all ways be out there, and not in here!

Yeah, I agree. Years ago we didn't have those folks posting here on the forum but we do now. And, it's only a matter of time before the Mathew Johnston/Barb & Gabby/Sasquatch Ontario, etc., etc., types with their portals and mind speak begin to become prominant here and chase many of the common sense skeptics away anyway. I'm starting not to care as the bf world gets goofier and goofier. I do like hearing the thoughts from woodsmen and clear thinkers though (skeptical or not) and hopefully that will continue for a little while longer... t.

I'm sort of the opinion if you are vulnerable to being punked by one of these jokers, you might need to tighten up your thinking anyway. Mainly I found them amusing for their lack of knowledge on so many topics, which didn't seem to limit their ability to pronounce some pretty ill-informed opinions. It only qualifies as being "trolled" if you think it is anything other than what it is. I responded to those like Saskeptc and dmaker only because it was a lot of fun to see them chase their tails and stumble over the things they didn't ever consider. Really, they just didn't get out much as far as I could tell. My description of them would be, "Often mistaken, but never in doubt." One thing I never, ever, did was treat them with any degree of seriousness. At most, what they will do only is bore you to death, and you'll need to go looking for a greater intellectual challenge. That, and you learn to sort of feel sorry for them for the world they live in. And look besides. Who is still here discussing this topic with intelligence? That's right, we are. (O.k. some of us at least)

Central point of rules, "This is not the ANTI-Bigfoot Forum". Think that sums things up nicely.

Would that include roads, cars, houses, logging sites, barrels, construction equipment, and all the other things put there by humans? Or just specifically those man made things that happen to collect evidence? Reason I ask is because I hear this a lot, but in the grand scheme of Bigfoot encounters it just makes no sense.

Well, your beliefs are wrong.

That's not bigfoot's limitation, that's YOUR limitation. They do a lot that doesn't "make sense" ... but "makes sense" is a wrong, pejorative, phrasing. What you should be saying is they defy your expectations and assumptions. Y' know what? They defy my assumptions as well. It's not an obstacle, it's a puzzle. I'm not sitting here on a forum pouting, I'm going out to the field and investigating. I want to know HOW they defy my assumptions. MIB

Yes – getting our preconceived notions challenged is a good thing. But, just like those JREFers (who you, in turn, seem happy to mock) you seem comfortable challenging other people’s notions but not necessarily your own. With an ambiguous subject like Bigfoot, “truthâ€, too, is subjective. “Truthâ€, though, may not be really what happened particularly if the objective evidence doesn’t support it. If you consider your relative position on Bigfoot to be noble and others as being not so then you are motivated (biased) towards what you already “know†and motivated (biased) against those you already consider to be ignoble. Personally, I find that tends to block potential understanding… Your position touches on the importance of personal experience – as an Aussie what would I know of Bigfoot and North America? I’ve never crawled through vine maple and devils club so what would I know? Well, I know that people here in the arse-end of the world (As Australia was once described by one of its former PMS) are speaking the same language, making the same claims, pondering the same ambiguous “evidenceâ€, and reaching the same conclusions as our North American cousins. It is no surprise that Bigfoot is being experienced once again in England but is it a real creature? Well, it’s as “real†as anything in Australia and North America but then I’ve never crawled through Sherwood Forest either… /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// So without any sort of investigation at all? Your just going to sweep your hand across the globe and make a profound statement that their are no bipedal cryptids left in the world? I cannot even fathom the depth of the ignorance in that statement. That is something that would come straight out of James Randi's mouth. I have no preconcieved notions, but I did see a bipedal trackway in very deep snow once. Look, I dont want you to take my word on anything, and I do what I can to provide a type specimen for the world, but your right I do not respect armchair quarterbacks. And because you go out looking for Yowie? They mock you as well as a closet believer. You have a much better hand than I do........Ebu Gogo? The Hobbit? An island dwarfed sub species of Homo Erectus living in your neighborhood roughly ONLY ten thousand years ago? Yah! The scientific establishment didnt like that one, no way possible that was anything but a dwarfed Homo Sapien, they said. Well........they were wrong. Why? Preconcieved notions? Ponder that one for a bit.

No, what you are trying to do is bring a JREF argument to a Bigfoot discussion. To the Spokane tribe it was not myth. They believed it real, they lived in those woods, you didn't. You thinking it nothing but myth doesn't change that. I have no idea if they are right, but to dismiss it as nothing but campfire stories shows a closed mind. A closed mind doesn't belong in honest discussion, it belongs at JREF where they pretend to be skeptics. I'm discussing the topic of this thread and how it hasn't a thing to do with Loch Ness, UFO's, dragons, etc. and it actually isn't about a "myth". It is poorly titled in that aspect. This story by Rev Walker (if you bothered to read the link in the op) is not relating a classic mythological story, it is relating what the Spokane people told him about what lived in the mountains. Native Americans only had oral history so they had plenty of mythological tales, there are entire books composed of Coyote tales alone, but this was not related to Rev Walker in that fashion. Many Native American stories that some say describe bigfoot or a bigfoot type creature are indeed myth, or "campfire stories" if you will, but this is not one of them. For you, it is nothing but a myth and case closed, along with your mind. Offering nothing but "it's a myth along with dragons etc." is worthless towards the discussion. It doesn't show how the Spokane were merely relating a mythical story as you try to portray it. It does nothing to address the question in the OP asking if this story of the Spokane shows there was a creature in those woods which aligns with what we today know as saquatch/bigfoot. That would add value to the discussion. All it does is show you are totally dismissive of the Spokane people and what they believe. Ok, we get it, it's nothing but myth for you, thanks for playing. Oh, I haven't even got started yet.

Sorry, no experts in this field. But give it time, a week on the forum won't teach you much.

Haven't been closely following this thread, but should have. I totally agree with Gumshoeye and Norseman about the cartoon, Totally silly. BF does talk, no question in my mind about that. If you hear one talking just as it passes a sound dish, 50 feet away, and your are listening to the amplified sounds with headphones at 2 AM in the boondocks, it's not something you will soon forget. When, a few seconds later, it's looking into the back window of a camper shell where you've been sleeping, and its about 3 feet from you, the sight and sounds are never forgotten. If you listen to the Sierra Sounds CD closely, you will hear one of the big males ask a question of the men, and repeat it when the men don't respond. The question to the reader is; what is the question the BF is asking? :-) They are a clan of humans, but not modern humans. They will live, forage and eat in a particular area until modern humans or natural disasters force them to leave. The will abide human presence as long as we do not interfere with their hunting/foraging, or try to ambush them - with gun or camera - at their cold water drinking sources in hot weather, or try to approach the family's bedding site day or night. Otherwise, they are simply having a little fun when they mess with folks, especially late at night. If anyone spends enough time in their territory, both day and night, and you show no fear of them, and show respect for their rules, one or more will eventually allow you to briefly and clearly see them. They realize that us humans are more advanced than they. In the back of my mind I believe that natural instincts urge them to capture and mate with Homo sapiens to improve their blood lines. It may be that they think that by kidnapping children, removing their clothing and carrying them into the boonies, they hope to raise them so that the children can then teach them the things that we know. They don't (or can't) understand that our children can't survive in the wilderness as their's do. (As mentioned, this paragraph is absolutely without a whit of evidence, and solely a thought that often enters my gourd.)

We aren't talking about dumb animals. They know their home ranges like the back of their hands, They would notice a typically mounted game camera as quick as you would if someone put one on a fence post or tree in your own yard. (And if a game camera is put up within a mile of their bedding area, one of the clan would likely watch you do it. Been there, done that. Last time was July 27, 2010.)

I have nothing called belief in this reality, Ssq are actual, real and evident...no doubt

Unlike the anonymous you that sits behind your computer I am a real researcher with a real reputation who personally knows and deals with other researchers face to face. You are right that I am afraid of people like you, because you and people like you want to destroy reputations. Anything to further your non existence belief system. You look at each destroyed reputation with glee because it furthers your agenda, rather than sadness that someone succumbed to human weakness and felt the need to hoax or fabricate. Your follow the money ruse is just a thinly veiled attempt to lump me in with money seeking hoaxers and hurt my reputation. You deftly dance around forum rules by using innuendo and false associations. Follow the money is an example of that. If you follow my money it is out of my pocket to fund my research. Something you would not understand.